B.JAINNUL ABDEAN vs TWAIK EAST INTERNATIONAL

FIRST Appeal No. 380/95 by the two complainants - B. Jainulabdeen and C. Saleem is directed against the order dated 31st May, 1995 of the State Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras. First Appeal No. 608/96 is by M/s. M.S. Travels, second opposite party and Twaik East. International, first opposite party before the State Commission.

SINCE we are not inclined to go into the merits, we will notice facts in brief. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainants approached Opposite Party No. 2 for employment abroad, that Opposite Party No. 2 promised to get employment for the complainants at Jeddah in Saudi Arabia as Airport cleaners at a monthly salary of 450 Saudi Riyals, that opposite party collected a sum of Rs. 49,800/- from each of the complainants, that the complainants were, however, sent to Riyadh and were made to work as cleaner of Municipal Roads at a monthly salary of 320 S.R. by the principal of Opposite Party No. 1 and that the complainants objected to their employment in adverse conditions and meagre salary and were sent back. The complainants filed the complaint praying the refund and compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs. On being noticed, opposite party No. 1 denied that it was agent of the principal at Saudi Arabia or that there was any privity of contract or hiring of service for consideration. Opposite party No. 2 also denied all averments in the complaint including receipt of Rs. 49,800/- from the complainants or any dealing with the complainants. Opposite Party No. 2, however, admitted that it is carrying on business of manpower consultancy but denied having arranged any employment for the complainants.

BEFORE the State Commission documents Exhibit A1 to A11 were admitted by consent and proof of affidavit was filed. The State Commission found that no payment had been made by the complainants to the opposite party No. 1 and no allegations of deficiency in service or negligence can be attributed to the opposite party No. 1. The State Commission noticed that the complainants had not filed any document to show the payment of the aforesaid sums to the apposite party No. 2 but accepted the affidavit of the complainants as against the Opposite Party No. 2. On the basis of the averments made in the affidavits of the complainants, the Opposite Party No. 2 was directed to refund to the complainants Rs. 99,600/- with interest at 18% from the date of the last payment i.e. 7.7.1994 till repayment besides granting costs.

THE complainants had placed on record certain documents which were marked as Exhibit A1 to A11 by consent. Opposite Party No. 2 had filed affidavit dated April, 1995 as additional proof and had dealt with those documents on the record. The documents filed along with the complaint show, prima facie, that it is the first opposite party who had dealings with the complainants. Opposite Party No. 1 was acting as an agent of Twaik Est. International. There is a letter dated 26.7.1994 alleged to be of the principal of the Opposite Party No. 1 commenting on unscrupulous recruitment methods, namely, promising innocent applicants positions and salaries that were not available and furthermore extracting large sums of money from the them. There is yet another letter which reveals the name of one Saramma who is alleged to have cheated the complainants by promising to secure jobs to the complainants. There is no document on record relating to the Opposite Party No. 2. The said documents had been dealt with by Opposite Party No. 2 in his additional proof affidavit as well as in the written arguments filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 before the State Commission. The State Commission did not advert to this affidavit nor to the documents filed by the complainants, but chose to prefer the affidavit of the complainant to that of Opposite Party No. 2. This is not a satisfactory adjudication of the consumer dispute. We therefore, set aside the orders under appeal and leave the complainants to the remedy by way of a suit where the complainants would have opportunity to prove all those documents and substantiate their claim against the opposite parties or even Saramma who is alleged to have cheated the complainants. Such type of disputes require extensive oral and documentary evidence which cannot be recorded in time bound proceedings before the Consumer Forum. First Appeal No. 380/95 is dismissed. First Appeal No. 607/95 is allowed and the impugned order of the State Commission is set aside. The complaint is dismissed. The complainants are left to seek their remedy by way of civil suit. Any expression of opinion on the merits is only tentative and will not prejudice either of the parties at the trial of the suit. The parties shall bear their own costs.